Two researchers at the IT University in Cohenhagen, Denmark, are looking at creating adaptive games that would change as you play them and learn whether you are playing to be competitive or just for fun.
According to an article in New Scientist, Julian Togelius and Georgios Yannakakis gathered volunteers to play two separate versions of Super Mario Bros. The game had been altered by changing the type and number of enemies and the size and gaps between platforms. The game was also set to record the moves that players made and how long they took standing still.
Some of the findings:
Some early results appear obvious. "If you die by falling too often down gaps that is indicative of frustration," says Yannakakis. However, the approach goes beyond "common sense" associations to uncover those that are not so readily apparent, he says. In Super Mario Bros, for example, hitting bricks to release coins or stomping turtle shells and throwing them - activities not necessary to accomplish the overall goal - positively correlate with a fun experience, Togelius says.
While this experiment is an interesting concept, the thought I found most disturbing is that, according to Ian Bogost associate professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, some developers may resist the idea because "some wonder if this effort destroys the potential for art to produce the unfamiliar or disturbing." In my mind, the two can live separately. If you create games for gamers, let the game adapt. If you want to create art, then don't.
A good read no matter what side of the fence you are on.
Comments
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
This combined with a 3 part diffcuilty setting(damage taken,damge given/AI) can make the AI more responsive and that I would like...I hate tone deaf AI or jsut weak AI like in Bioshock....
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
"If you create games for gamers, let the game adapt. If you want to create art, then don't."
Why not have both? Optional settings so that the player can decide if he wants a linear or an adaptive experience. Not sure why we're still debating optional settings 30+ years into the development of video games. More options are always better.
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
the trick will be for the game to recognise what you want it to recognise. you dont want the game to get easier because you were messing about for 5 minuets maybe trying out different ways the character can die YAY FIRE WHEEE ARGHHHHH heheheheh.
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
I agree, it also has to take into account "the rotation". What I mean by that is if you're sitting with friends playing a game, GTA for example, you tend to pass the controller around the room. Adapting to 3 different players is much different than adapting to one.
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
I find that what makes a game fun is the experience. You can not point out what exactly makes all games fun because it varies from game to game.
Some games are all about the well design game-play, which we see in indie games all the time. They don't necessary need the greatest in graphics. Then there are the graphics whore games like Crysis which would be meaningless without it's graphics. Other games are about the epic cinematic moments like Shadow of the Colossus where you feel like you are playing an epic tale in an outstanding movie. There are the games about the story, and how it unfolds. Almost any recent Bioware game falls under that.
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
I may be missing the point as I've not read the full article yet but things like adaptive AI that changes to go easier on players that are struggling or gets tough on better players have been about for ages though that's more enemies/opponents rather than the actual level design. As for games as art, I think they are to a lesser or greater degree just like there are great films and books and also trashy pulp fiction (ironic as I'd class the movie in the great catagory) books and crummy B-movie exploitation pics and brainless blockbusters.
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
I've been putting much thought into this topic for the past few years.
Frankly I think all games are art, not going to get into the debate but I have yet to hear a decent argument against games as art. Not one (and I've read/heard quite a few)
In my eyes creating games that adapt to the player has a higher potential of being a successful work of art. It would absolutely have a higher possiblity of creating a virtual world that is unique to the user. How does this disqualify it as art? I see this concept as more interesting than many games we play today.
Re: Adaptive Games: More Bang for Your Buck?
I agree that gaming in general is an art form but I think games are like movies. There are some truly groundbreaking art but there is also plenty of "popcorn" fodder that's just meant to be fun. No one is going to confuse "Transformers" with "Schindler's List" in the same way no one is going to confuse "Brutal Legend" with "Shadow of the Colossus"